SUBHASH CHAND Vs. GIAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 22.11.2000 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar, who dismissed the application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for the following reasons as given in paras 3 and 4 of the order :

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits petitioner is in possession of the property in the capacity of a tenant and, therefore, he is a necessary party to the suit. In support of his contention, the learned counsel submits that ration card was issued in the name of the petitioner on this address. So much so, passport was also issued to the petitioner on this very address and, therefore, he is in possession of the, property.

(3.) I do not subscribe to the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The case set up by the petitioner is that he is occupying the property in the capacity of a tenant. A question was put to the learned counsel whether any rent note was executed in favour of the petitioner, his answer was in the negative. When further inquired whether any rent receipt is in possession of the petitioner, the learned counsel fairly conceded that the petitioner is not in possession of any receipt though he has been paying the rent orally. In these circumstances, it is not established on the record that the petitioner is in possession of the property as of any right. In these circumstances, neither he is a necessary nor proper party. Therefore, I do not see any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order.